Welcome to our last Weekend Reads of 2014. This week featured our second annual Top 10 Retractions list. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
- “Plagiarism is for losers,” says a journal editor.
- “The retraction war,” by Jill Neimark, asks, “Scientists seek demigod status, journals want blockbuster results, and retractions are on the rise: is science broken?”
- “Science took a step back in 2014,” says Traci Watson at USA Today.
- Retraction Watch has become “something of a Perez Hilton for researchers,” Julia Belluz writes, but “the website is much more than a nerd’s water-cooler: it has become a rich repository of data about how and where science goes wrong, and a cultural document about research today and the humans who do the work, with all their imperfections and flaws.”
- The evidence for many claims by Dr. Oz and other TV doctors is scant, says a new study. So’s the basis for much of the advice in Men’s Health.
- Here’s “what pharmacy practitioners need to know about ethics in scientific publishing.”
- “Free access to science research doesn’t benefit everyone,” writes Rose Eveleth. Michael Eisen responds to this and another piece.
- PNAS has sure had a lot of embargo breaks this year.
- A case involving Sheldon Adelson and “whether linking to an accurately reported story is enough to dodge a defamation suit” is heading to a higher court.
- Scientists are contributing to bad reporting about research, argues Michael White.
- Academic journals are “The Most Profitable Obsolete Technology in History,” says Jason Schmitt.
- Headline of a letter published in a journal: “Implausible results from the use of invalid methods.”
- “Publishing in a non-traditional journal was a mixed bag,” writes Brent Thoma, who adds, “I would encourage other medical researchers to give the Winnower a chance so that it can build the credibility and community that it needs to help make open-access, open review publication a credible option.”
- “We need more research on causes and consequences” of scientific bias and misconduct, “as well as on solutions,” writes Daniele Fanelli.
- A “journal switched from a subscription model…to open access in 2012 and has decreased in quality, impact, prestige, and metrics ever since,” reports Jeffrey Beall.
- Here are 11 ways to spot bogus headlines about your health, courtesy of BuzzFeed.
- Egypt banned a group of archeologists from working at a site after the “mission violated the rules and regulations of the agreement with the Ministry of Antiquities concerning making press statements.”
- Here’s why you can trust Vox: When they make a mistake, the first paragraph of the new story includes the line “That claim was absolutely incorrect.”
- “Experience has taught statisticians that data can be misleading and, even worse, wrongly give the semblance of objectivity.”
- A Christmas-themed call for papers by a journal promises publication in four days.
1. Science is broken. No doubt about that. And retractions, errata and expressions of concern are only in a nascent phase.
2. 2014 was only the beginning of the war in, and on, science. This is going to get worse as PubMed Commons gains traction, PubPeer gets an increase in traffic and as RW builds its long-awaited retraction data-base.
3. Those who are “living it up” in science are clearly alien to its conflicts. Their role in science needs to be questioned because scientists now have two clear duties (the second was always downplayed, or a relatively non-proactive role until now): a) to work for science and b) to defend its integrity.
4. To me, the most significant document to have been published was the change to ICMJE’s ethical stance regarding authorship responsibilities. MY views on this elsewhere at RW:
http://retractionwatch.com/2014/08/27/this-retraction-has-teeth-journal-changes-publication-policy-after-discovering-misconduct/
5. And in my field, plant science, there is still great resistance to post-publication peer review, despite some inroads having been made, thanks to RW and PubPeer, which allow for public awareness of the problem:
http://retractionwatch.com/2014/01/25/weekend-reads-trying-unsuccessfully-to-correct-the-scientific-record-drug-company-funding-and-research/
6. Despite the frictions, conflicts and risks, 2015 promises to be a make or break year, I predict, for science integrity.